Skip to main content

View Post [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 15, 2008 3:47pm
Forum: texts Subject: Nazi post redux

I don't know how many of you speak german, but this article has recently come to my attention -

For those who can't, it basically means that and myself personally have finally gotten the recognition we deserve;)

For the record, I never read, and in fact, don't know enough german to read the book introduction that they refer to,
Die Frauenfrage und ihre Lösung durch den Nationalsozialismus". It was there when i found the PDF

Something like, this is the natural order and it rings true 70 years now, or something

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 18, 2008 9:49am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

Well, it looks like I'm being kicked out of Internet archive. All but 200 items are now missing, and most of the rest have a "Can not be viewed because of issues with the content".

Months of work, and 1000s of important historical and sociological data lost. Even items that didn't have anything to do with the Nazis! I had other interest, that was just one of them. American propaganda, communism, the history of race relations... Well, I knew it was too good to last, a system were anyone could share anything, no matter what its message was.

So long everybody, may I meet ya'll when I'm old and wiser

Reply [edit]

Poster: stbalbach Date: Jan 18, 2008 11:11am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

IMO that kind of hate material, in such large quantity without a contextual framework, was not appropriate for IA - glad to see it go (from here). The total size of those files is not so large, perhaps $100 a year or so could pay your way at a private hosting service. There is no magic about being hosted at IA, other than a free ride. I could see you being upset if you were a big donor to Internet Archive, in which case use that money elsewhere to get a private hosting site.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Jan 18, 2008 1:01pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

As a set, the materials you posted were either not likely to be in the public domain, such as too recent; not clear that they were your own works; or not clear that you had been granted permission from the rightsholder(s) to make them available at this site. If there were actually some items that did not fall under any of the above issues, please post those specific item identifiers, along with individual clarficiations for each, for reevaluation by curators. Thanks! BTW the actual informational content of any of your items was not a consideration.
This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2008-01-18 21:01:15

Reply [edit]

Poster: John Mark Ockerbloom Date: Jan 21, 2008 7:03am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

I'd listed the following items on The Online Books Page
that appeared to be without copyright problems, and that the Internet Archive has now marked as unavailable due to issues with content:

If IA curators could check these out, and either restore them, or let me know if there are particular copyright problems or concerns that prevent particular items from the above list from being restored, I'd appreciate it.

There are also two items for which I get "exhausted all locator URLs" issues. I don't know if these were actually pulled, or whether there's a technical problem with these; but these would be useful to have back too:

Note that the URAA copyright restorations do not apply to works that were published in the US first, or within 30 days of their publication abroad.

If I recall correctly, at least one of the items above was Nazi propaganda specifically written for American consumption. I think it's fairly safe to assume that it was published here first or simultaneously for the purposes of copyright law, and therefore subject to the usual US notice and renewal requirements. Some of the other items above are of US origin, or are online with permission, though since I can't look at the items right now, I can't say much definite about them.

Feel free to do any appropriate metadata cleanup on these items if necessary.

Thanks for your attention to these items.

John Mark Ockerbloom
Editor, The Online Books Page

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 18, 2008 7:32pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

Exactly how do I contact the curators with the identifiers? Some of the material was definatly in the Public domain. A few of the items were even on John Ockerblooms Online books page and he has quite strict rules for listing. Others were before the 1920s or US govt. publications.

Please respond to this, I want at least one of the 1700 items to get back online

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Jan 19, 2008 8:49am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

You can do it right here on this thread as a reply, in the open. That way whichever curator who sees and has time, can look into the item(s). Also, as we've seen in the movies collections over the years for instance, often there are informed collection patrons reading the forum who can offer relevant advice and extra detail on certain items. EDIT: If someone could post a link to this thread: onto the blogs: Thanks for help, as I am not a registrant there! That may greatly help with sorting out, for instance, the public domain items. A question you but not others can answer immediately, Mr. Dudeman: Which of the items were your *own* creative works? I can attend to those, as a start.
This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2008-01-19 16:49:10

Reply [edit]

Poster: Historiograf Date: Jan 19, 2008 7:36pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

Registration at is simple and free of cost. As administrator of Archivalia I appreciate removing evident copyvios and stuff with clearly inappropriate metadata making the IA to a neonazi propaganda platform.

US isn't accepting the "rule of the shorter term". Nazi Works published in Germany after 1922 from authors who died after 1925 are NOT PD in the US, see the recent discussion at

"What is true, is that the URAA itself does contain a non-restoration clause similar to the rule of the shorter term, but with a fixed year (the URAA date, 1996 in most cases). Which is why I wrote at the very beginning that the problem existed in general for foreign works published 1923 or later by authors who died 1926 or later (1996 - 70). If the author died between 1926 and (currently) 1936, his works are PD in 70 years p.m.a. countries, but his post-1922 (or post-1908) works are still copyrighted in the U.S. because they were copyrighted in the source country in 1996, and thus the URAA did apply, and the U.S. term is 95 years since publication (for pre-1978 works). If the foreign author died 1925 or earlier, we're in the clear, because then his foreign works were also PD in the source country in 1996." User Lupo 2007 May 3 on Wikimedia Commons.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Jan 19, 2008 8:51am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

On the topic of your creative works, you mentioned in another thread about writing your dissertation. Your advisor, and thesis committee as a whole, may have valuable feedback about the materials you have sent here. What was their overall response when you would have brought your project here up with them? Then also, given that the reported public domain material you have sent may have been obtained from the library at your institution of higher learning: Have you approached your library about the possibility of teaming up with the Open Content Alliance? This way, the public domain materials could be entered into the archive with full quality control and consistency, and likely with greater scope than at the level you have been working. Given that you will need to spend time reading and writing as you prepare your thesis, a side benefit is that you would hand the time and effort of scanning and uploading to an organized team. You cited work burden and time spent as factors above.
This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2008-01-19 16:51:48

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 19, 2008 1:05pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

Alot of the US govt. items would obviously be in public domain (I crossed reference these in Worldcat):

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Jan 22, 2008 5:00pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

OK, all of the above with the exception of AustraliaOurNeighbordownUnder which I'll have to get back to later (looks like it's having a temporary problem) should shortly be clickable directly. They will not appear in the search engine again for a bit yet due to natural lag; check tomorrow if you like. If you get another public domain set identified, for clarity post them in a reply rather than editing your prior post. Thanks! EDIT: The Australia one should come back shortly.
This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2008-01-23 01:00:35

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 19, 2008 7:59pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

The following texts have been allowed for online distribution by the CP holder: The following do not have CPs or are out of range, so to speak; (That one I made myself)
This post was modified by dudeman5685 on 2008-01-20 03:59:44

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 29, 2008 3:37pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

I recently received this e-mail regarding the Creativity sect material above.

Thank you for your email. As to the question of copyright ownership of Creativity materials - i.e. book, audio and film, it can be said that ownership is with all and every adherent of Creativity. Copyright ownership of video of Ben Klassen and Matt Hale was owned by the Church of the Creator and the World Church of the Creator respectively. However, as neither organization, group or church exists now as it was, ownership now defaults to ALL adherents of Creativity. Provided of course that the content and the essential message of the videos are not altered. The same can be said for most if not all audio productions.

Books on the other hand are a different matter. Ben Klassen as the author of the original books of Creativity was the copyright holder. Upon his death, copyright ownership would naturally have graduated to his heirs - in this case his daughter. Although Ben Klassen's daughter has never relinquished her right to copyright ownership, she has also never attempted to abrogate the rights of Creators to spread Creativity via print and distribution of the books. Ben Klassen's motto was "A White Man's Bible in every house," and as Creativity is NOT a moneymaking or get rich quick scheme, sharing the books electronically is just another method that has been put into operation since Klassen's death. The only stipulation that Ben Klassen gave, was that "Our books remain inviolate." i.e. You may distribute the books to your heart's content - in fact Ben Klassen ORDERED the books of Creativity to be distributed - as long as they are never altered.

The Truth About 9/11, by Matt Hale is in more or less the same category, as Matt Hale demanded and expects that the book be distributed freely. In fact, it is sometimes printed in pamphlet form and given away. Matt Hale is alive and well, and even though incarcerated in a prison he refuses to abrogate the right of Creators to distribute his book, The Truth About 9/11 in any way or form that we can. Even so, any profits made from book sales SHOULD be sent to Hale's parents.

Festum Album was written by Reverend John King of the World Church of the Creator FOR the World Church of the Creator. Therefore copyright ownership of Festum Album was with the World Church of the Creator (which no longer exists) and NOT with John King. Just as for other Creator materials, Festum Album is available for all and every adherent of Creativity to distribute whenever and however he can - providing the contents remain "inviolate."

Bear in mind that Creativity is a religion. Anything written or recorded for the benefit of Creativity is absorbed by the religion to become a new (and often an essential) aspect of the religion of Creativity. Can not the same be said for all aspects of Christianity if it was to be put to the question of copyright ownership?

Therefore, to the extent which I am permitted, I give you permission to upload files found on the Creativity Alliance website to other servers, providing that the content remain inviolate.

Yours Faithfully,

Rev Thomas Darwin.

I think it would be reasonable to say that this is sufficient permission to allow the Creator books to be restored

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 20, 2008 8:25am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

David Irving has committed most of his works to the public domain:

There were also a large number published by the Peking foreign Language Press. The Deng Xiaoping ones were available on a Chinese govt. website.

The Larouce movement was also OK with allowing the following books to be online:

David King has allowed this book online:

As have the PRA people:

I apologize if this list is rather long, but remember i had nearly 1700 items here, which took me 7-8 months to upload.

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 29, 2008 3:40pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

You really did (and do) need my permission to upload my books anywhere other than on my own website. I am afraid I cannot give this permission. Thank you, but please do not do it.

David Irving

So that either means that there was never permission in the first place, or that there is tons of evidence that there was permission and only Irving says there isn't. One can never tell with these permission deniers. Oh well, who needs him anyhow?

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Jan 20, 2008 2:59pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

I'm also having trouble posting new material, is that because of this controversy?

Reply [edit]

Poster: John Mark Ockerbloom Date: Jan 21, 2008 7:24am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

" David Irving has committed most of his works to the public domain: "

Can you point to where he does this? He does make many of his books available online (though the page above says "We prefer you buy them") but I don't see where he dedicates them to the public domain. Indeed, with a number of the books, when you go to the download page, a dialog pops up saying "This is a copyright document. Not to be commercially exploited..." etc., which indicates that he *isn't* dedicating them to the public domain.

I do list a number of Irving's books, linking to copies on his own site, but without other information I can't assume a priori that any other online copy is authorized.

Reply [edit]

Poster: marcus lucero Date: Jan 16, 2008 1:55pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux


Reply [edit]

Poster: marcus lucero Date: Jan 16, 2008 1:49pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

You are also getting some attention from others at:

I suggest they look at all your previous posts on this subject.

Posted HERE:

and HERE:

This is my favorite quote so far, "...As archivists we can personally believe (or not) whatever we want. When we walk through the doors of our repositories we stop being 'regular' people and become guardians of information. It does a great disservice to future generations if we ignore our obligations to preserve our personal viewpoints."


Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Feb 2, 2008 1:20pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

You have our permission to post the pamphlet
"Communism, Science and Culture" by Jacques Duclos
on the web, in English.
International Publishers Co., Inc.
Betty Smith, President

Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Feb 1, 2008 1:50pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Nazi post redux

Hi *****, all of the ebook content on, and the
itself is copyright Friends of Oswald Mosley. (FOM). The sole rights to
reproduce and publish Oswald Mosley, British Union, British Union of
Fascists, and Union Movement, material was passed to FOM by Oswald
himself and Action Press (Mosley's post war publishing house). All of
material on the Oswald Mosley website, including the ebooks, may be
reproduced, and distributed, and you have FOM's full permission to
and distribute this material on the internet, and via email, FTP etc,
as you
wish providing the
material content is not edited or altered. i.e you can not edit or
the text.

To my knowledge there are no legitimate grounds for blocking the
distribution of any of this material - it may be "controversial" but by
definition all political material is controversial.


Peter McCarron,